Next iPhone Said to Have Even Better IP68-Rated Water Resistance

[Born Again]

dont they say this every year? we have a better product blah blah blah

 

[gnasher729]

Does Samsung, or rather which manufacturers do cover water damage in their warranty? Not trying to stir ****, am just interested.

They did, and gave new free phones to some idiots who should have got a kick in the behind instead. I think they are changing this or have changed it. And if they haven't, they should.

 

[Col4bin]

Makes sense with the physical home button going away.

 

[KdParker]

Add this to the list of features I simply could not care about. Everything with Apple products these days are gimmicks, not advancements.

I like the phone holding up to water better. Not that I want to go swimming with the phone, but some resistance to water was needed.

 

[lincolntran]

Didn't Samsung phone die BEFORE iPhone 7 in a depth test, boiling test, etc.?

Why does Samsung phone have higher rate then iPhone when it died before the iPhone?

 

[dannyyankou]

Add this to the list of features I simply could not care about. Everything with Apple products these days are gimmicks, not advancements.

Water resistance is a gimmick?

It would've saved a couple phones I've owned, that's for sure.

 

[69Mustang]

Then the whole advertisement of using it in the rain is potentially harmful and lying, is it not? It may not protect the phone in such an environment.

No it is not. Using your iPhone in the rain falls well within the IP67/8 rating. Using your phone in the rain is not immersion from a depth of 15cm to 1 meter.

 

[dannyyankou]

I've never needed any sort of waterproofing personally. While it may be of use to some, waterproofing itself on a phone is more of a gimmick in my mind...just the same as the crazy obsession of thinness over battery life or real features. The amount of time and manpower they spend on this could be redirected to something more useful...say...new Macs???

Oh I see, "I haven't needed this feature so it's not important."

Makes sense

 

[bluespark]

Then the whole advertisement of using it in the rain is potentially harmful and lying, is it not? It may not protect the phone in such an environment.

No, it is not "lying." Apple has no way to tell whether a water-damaged phone was rained on whether it sat on the bottom of a swimming pool. Accordingly, it cannot guarantee the phone against water damage, even though it is water resistant.

 

[PsykX]

This whole "water resistance" is meaningless if Apple will not stand by their product and replace it because of water damage, in my opinion. Until they do that, I won't be testing out the water resistance.

It's not meant to be a feature customers "test"...
Out of curiosity, did you "test" the air bags in your car ?

 

[BvizioN]

This whole "water resistance" is meaningless if Apple will not stand by their product and replace it because of water damage, in my opinion. Until they do that, I won't be testing out the water resistance.

The whole idea if claiming just about anything ( particularly in the West) is absolutely crazy. I want a phone that have a water resistance, not for pushing to its limits, abusing it and then going to Apple to claim a new one, but you know....to use it without worrying if i drop it in the sink, or something.

 

[ChrisCW11]

Thinner phone, thicker rubber seals, that is magical.

 

[Matthew.H]

No it is not. Using your iPhone in the rain falls well within the IP67/8 rating. Using your phone in the rain is not immersion from a depth of 15cm to 1 meter.

The problem comes when someone has a water resistance phone which fails in that situation because the resistance was defective from the factory. That customer has used their device in an advertised situation and it's failed under those conditions when the advert device continued to work. The average customer probably doesn't read the warranty terms. The phone is advertised as water resistant so they assume the warranty will cover water damage if it occurs.

 

[69Mustang]

This whole "water resistance" is meaningless if Apple will not stand by their product and replace it because of water damage, in my opinion. Until they do that, I won't be testing out the water resistance.

Apple (and no other electronics company) doesn't replace because of water damage because the assumption is for water damage to occur the user had to have engaged in activity outside of the specifications of the water resistance rating. The water resistance is there to add additional protection from normal activity and accidents.

 

[JTToft]

water damage protection against immersion between 15 centimeters and 1 meter

- What exactly does that mean? Will it break if it's immersed in water shallower than 15 centimers?

If not, why not write "up to 1 meter" instead?

 

[2010mini]

Water resistance is hardly a feature when it's not covered under warranty. Not worth advertising water resistance and annoying customers who's phones fail due to water ingress and they only find out that the warranty is voided when taking the phone in for service.

Water resistant is not water proof. No company covers water damage from water resistant devices. Now if you have a water proof device and it sustains water damage. Then you would have grounds to complain.

 

[BruceEBonus]

Waterproof phone? Beat that Samsung! Oh hang on ....

 

[cicalinarrot]

I'm so glad about this. I saw the 30 feet lake submersion test and thought "So if I drop it in a 35 feet lake maybe I'm screwed! Let's not buy this".

 

[Appleaker]

As long as it doesn't mean getting rid of all ports, I think this is a really good improvement.

 

[JTToft]

Water resistant is not water proof. No company covers water damage from water resistant devices. Now if you have a water proof device and it sustains water damage. Then you would have grounds to complain.

- It's all a matter of degrees. Everything is water resistant to a lesser or greater extent; nothing is absolutely water proof. Hence the distinction is without meaning.

 

[DaPizzaMan]

Apple (and no other electronics company) doesn't replace because of water damage because the assumption is for water damage to occur the user had to have engaged in activity outside of the specifications of the water resistance rating. The water resistance is there to add additional protection from normal activity and accidents.

But if it fails to protect normal activity and accidents then the protection was meaningless.

 

[Stella]

I would expect this. I don't consider this special innovation.

 

[ryanarr]

Good start. Now what about wireless charging? I use my Galaxy S7 in the bathtub all the time, but it can't charge on a wire until the USB port fully dries (can take hours). Wireless charging fixes this issue. Also a great way to increase the longevity of the phone by decreasing wear on the port.

 

[gugy]

Water resistance is hardly a feature when it's not covered under warranty. Not worth advertising water resistance and annoying customers who's phones fail due to water ingress and they only find out that the warranty is voided when taking the phone in for service.

Yep, I purchased a AW2 to track my swimming and if for some reason it fails due water damage, I fully expect Apple to replace or fix it under the 1 year warranty. That's their advertisement they even showed at the keynote. If you can't stand behind it, then don't advertise it or offer the feature.

 

[macTW]

This whole "water resistance" is meaningless if Apple will not stand by their product and replace it because of water damage, in my opinion. Until they do that, I won't be testing out the water resistance.

Being IP 67 means it can handle SOME water. If apple covered that, thousands of people would treat it as if it could handle ALL water.

No company backs their phone water resistance. This isn't Apple.